American foreign policy towards India illustrates that punitive measures against key partners often result in the opposite of intended outcomes. During Putin’s ceremonial visit to India in December 2025, Washington faced the uncomfortable truth that its economic coercion was reinforcing the relationships it aims to weaken.
The December 5, 2025 release of the Trump administration’s National Security Strategy signifies a significant shift in transatlantic relations, explicitly showcasing American antagonism toward its historical democratic allies. The document goes beyond conventional policy disputes, exposing a deep-seated hostility toward European sovereignty, democratic governance, and territorial integrity.
The decline of unipolar authority is now evident, particularly highlighted by the US’s absence from the G20 Summit in South Africa. For years, global diplomacy relied on American leadership to resolve crises. However, the situation in Gaza and the West’s isolation at major multilateral events in late 2025 indicate that this era of singular influence is over.
The indefinite postponement of the 10th Summit of the Americas by the Dominican Republic in late 2025 signifies a critical juncture in the decline of Pan-American diplomacy. Once intended as a platform for economic integration and democratic solidarity since the 1990s, the summit process has now stalled due to “profound divergences” as described by Santo Domingo.
Washington’s foreign policy paradoxically reflects substantial military spending increases and the erosion of traditional alliances through economic coercion, showcasing a significant gap between campaign promises of restraint and current governance, highlighting tensions in American strategic thinking.
The adoption of UN Security Council Resolution 2803 in late 2025 signifies a significant change in governance for the Gaza Strip, shifting from Israeli military control to an American-led administration. The resolution, while citing “stabilization” and “transitional administration,” reflects strategies analogous to those used during the 2003 Iraq invasion. By forming a “Board of Peace” and a Civil-Military Coordination Center (CMCC), the U.S. positions itself as the new de facto occupying power, leveraging international mandates to obscure violations of Palestinian sovereignty.
The Trump administration’s use of military force against Latin American drug trafficking has raised concerns of a constitutional crisis. Reports of “double-tap” strikes on survivors and orders to “kill them all” blur the lines between law enforcement and armed conflict. This militarized counter-narcotics strategy risks undermining legal standards for U.S. military actions and could set a perilous international precedent for lethal force.
The collapse of a free society typically happens gradually rather than through sudden events. Historical evidence shows that the erosion of liberty often results from well-intentioned ideas about justice, diversity, and anti-imperialism. This situation is captured by the “paradox of tolerance,” which asserts that unlimited tolerance can ultimately lead to the loss of tolerance itself.
Brazil’s foreign policy is influenced by a unique historical context; unlike many Global South countries with colonial histories, Brazil’s frustrations arise from its exclusion from the leadership of the postwar order it helped create. This ongoing disappointment informs Brazilian diplomacy, fueling campaigns for institutional reform and recognition, reflecting both ambition and insecurity.
The adoption of UN Security Council Resolution 2803 signifies a diplomatic win for the Trump administration, endorsing the “20-point plan” for Gaza. However, the initiative faces challenges due to major Arab powers’ refusal to participate in “peace enforcement” against Hamas, which may hinder the deployment of the authorized International Stabilization Force (ISF) aimed at securing the region.
Trump falsely claimed Japan handed him control of a $550 billion fund, with the U.S. keeping 90% of profits a ridiculous lie, as Japan would never pay such a sum to avoid minor trade disruptions. Plus, Trump’s promises are worthless, as he could break any deal at will, making the entire claim absurd.
